Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
p.17 #1Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
It's easy to see why the best modern day lenses have flatlined MTF charts, even at high spatial frequencies. The larger the spread of the image on a viewing surface, the more differences will be apparent, some maybe unexpected. Maybe a trend to more of a cine look, that iron fist in a velvet glove look.
Sep 17, 2020 at 09:58 PM
p.17 #2Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
rvh23 wrote:
I don't have a good explanation for the significant distance readout disruption, but there is no way the shimming material is a hundred, let alone several hundred microns thick. The only thing I can think of is that when I punched a hole through it for the screws to pass through it left a burr that acted to increase the effective thickness. But I would expect a shim that is several hundred microns thick and placed in one corner to be way too much adjustment given the lens was not severely asymmetric in the first place.
In relation to the induced FC, no I unfortunately don't have images I can show. It was just an anecdotal observation through the EVF, because by that stage I had already decided I wasn't going to be keeping the lens. But it seemed quite obvious even at 24mm where the lens unshimmed is essentially flat field.No problem! Yes, I am doubtful that the shimming material is that thick. The degree of misalignment looks subtle, less than 50 microns by my very rough estimate. But it also looks decentered, not just tilted or swung, again I'm guessing from your crops. One needs to see the full image and the test subject needs to have certain qualities for one to be absolutely sure.
There might be something to say about your long-suffering quest for a great copy. Our experience with the Sigma 14-24 2.8 DG DN was similar. Joe Holmes tried 8 (!) copies and all were grossly asymmetrical. I tried only one and it was too. That's 9 out of 9 all bad, and not slightly bad. Like really bad. I have no idea how anyone gets good copies, surely our luck cannot be this awful. Fred seems to have an amazing copy to kill for. I recall seeing one other great copy on this forum. Joe remembers seeing two others, so we know of a total of 4 copies that are supposedly really great, but we can't seem to find them (I've given up myself, since I don't usually shoot super wide anyways). One would hope the GMs are a little more consistent in that regard, given the cost. Cameras today are too sharp and unforgiving on the optics.
I too remember seeing such statements here from time to time, which has always puzzled me that folks were observing such a phenomenon. Sounded like observational error then.It took me four copies before I had a Sigma 14-24 DG DN that I was happy with, and I thought I was having worse luck than most, but perhaps not judging from your comment.
Increasingly, from reading your posts, I'm thinking something must have gone wrong with my internal shim on the GM. Since I was waiting for copy #4, this afternoon I went back and tried mounting shims on the camera's lens mount instead where it's easier to be sure the shims are flat and don't need holes. This time it took about 4 layers of the foil (so maybe 40um) in the most-adjusted corner. Results showed about the same improvement as for my internal shimming exercise, but the distance readout and FC were not noticeably affected now.
It's now very good at 14mm, not bad at 12mm, but all four corners are softer than I'd like at the long end. My 2nd copy was actually superb at 24mm, but at the wide end had one corner that didn't sharpen up enough even stopped down. So the search continues.
I've pretty much commited to trying as many copies as it takes (hopefully not 10) because this focal range is where I shoot the very large majority of my landscapes.I'm not sure that I am comfortable with the practice of partially disassembling and then experimentally shimming and altering the plane of focus of multiple lenses that will then be returned to be sold as new to other buyers.I think you misunderstand. In Australia, it's very hard to return a lens to most vendors unless it is obviously faulty. I would never try to return a lens that I have adjusted in any way. For these GMs the only option I have when they are reasonable, but just not to my satisfaction, is to resell them usually at a loss despite having had essentailly no use.
In any case, I only tried adjusting one lens (and returned it to its original condition in the end) and I don't plan to do it with any other copies unless I...Show more →
It’s true that it’s hard to return a lens in Aus unless it’s obviously faulty, but this reluctance by vendors to let you do it is clearly inconsistent with Australian consumer law, which specifies not on,y that the product needs to be fit for purposes. It that it’s the consumer who decides that. The laws also specifies that it’s the consumer who chooses whether the manufacturer or the retailer deals with the return....so don’t be fobbed off by “you’ll have to approach Sony” or whatever by the seller.
I’ve found that the reluctance vanishes when you start to cite the law. But I agree it’s an off putting pain to have to do that.
chiron wrote
rvh23 wrote
inksandpaper wrote
rvh23 wrote
Thanks very much for all this additional information and taking the time.I don't have a good explanation for the significant distance readout disruption, but there is no way the shimming material is a hundred, let alone several hundred microns thick. The only thing I can think of is that when I punched a hole through it for the screws to pass through it left a burr that acted to increase the effective thickness. But I would expect a shim that is several hundred microns thick and placed in one corner to be way too much adjustment given the lens was not severely asymmetric in the first place.
In relation to the induced FC, no I unfortunately don't have images I can show. It was just an anecdotal observation through the EVF, because by that stage I had already decided I wasn't going to be keeping the lens. But it seemed quite obvious even at 24mm where the lens unshimmed is essentially flat field.
There might be something to say about your long-suffering quest for a great copy. Our experience with the Sigma 14-24 2.8 DG DN was similar. Joe Holmes tried 8 (!) copies and all were grossly asymmetrical. I tried only one and it was too. That's 9 out of 9 all bad, and not slightly bad. Like really bad. I have no idea how anyone gets good copies, surely our luck cannot be this awful. Fred seems to have an amazing copy to kill for. I recall seeing one other great copy on this forum. Joe remembers seeing two others, so we know of a total of 4 copies that are supposedly really great, but we can't seem to find them (I've given up myself, since I don't usually shoot super wide anyways). One would hope the GMs are a little more consistent in that regard, given the cost. Cameras today are too sharp and unforgiving on the optics.
Earlier quote
When you say the spacing and allignment shouldn't affect FC, I don't at all doubt your expertise, and even less so the folks at lensrenatals. But my recollection of my adapter shimming days, and also discussion here on FM, is that FC often was affected. But it's possible I'm misremembering the details.Increasingly, from reading your posts, I'm thinking something must have gone wrong with my internal shim on the GM. Since I was waiting for copy #4, this afternoon I went back and tried mounting shims on the camera's lens mount instead where it's easier to be sure the shims are flat and don't need holes. This time it took about 4 layers of the foil (so maybe 40um) in the most-adjusted corner. Results showed about the same improvement as for my internal shimming exercise, but the distance readout and FC were not noticeably affected now.
It's now very good at 14mm, not bad at 12mm, but all four corners are softer than I'd like at the long end. My 2nd copy was actually superb at 24mm, but at the wide end had one corner that didn't sharpen up enough even stopped down. So the search continues.
I've pretty much commited to trying as many copies as it takes (hopefully not 10) because this focal range is where I shoot the very large majority of my landscapes.
In any case, I only tried adjusting one lens (and returned it to its original condition in the end) and I don't plan to do it with any other copies unless I...Show more →
It’s true that it’s hard to return a lens in Aus unless it’s obviously faulty, but this reluctance by vendors to let you do it is clearly inconsistent with Australian consumer law, which specifies not on,y that the product needs to be fit for purposes. It that it’s the consumer who decides that. The laws also specifies that it’s the consumer who chooses whether the manufacturer or the retailer deals with the return....so don’t be fobbed off by “you’ll have to approach Sony” or whatever by the seller.
I’ve found that the reluctance vanishes when you start to cite the law. But I agree it’s an off putting pain to have to do that.
Sep 17, 2020 at 10:00 PM
p.17 #3Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
I know what you mean, but it's not like the lens is any worse on the r4 than on the r3. It's just that you are tempted to examine it at higher magnification: since "1:1" is not the same multiple of the sensor dimensions in a higher resolution camera.
Now, if the reason you bought the higher resolution camera is to make 20% larger prints than the already very large ones you make with your f3, or you have purchased a giant display, maybe your standards for acceptable lenses should go up.
But if that's not the reason: if your final image consuming habits haven't changed, if it was good enough on the r3 it's good enough on the R4 - the extra resolution of the R4 has other benefits (less moire and other demosaising artefacts) beyond increased linear resolution, and the lens doesn't have to be any better to get those benefits.Totally agree David, especially about your comment on less aliasing on A7R IV images. There is only one point I think we diverge... I think what's acceptable today may not be in the near future. Just speculating, perhaps very soon, it would be very cool to present our images in big 16K displays. Shooting with the R4 instead of R3 would give your detailed landscapes that extra 20% linear resolution -- unfortunatly mostly captured at center. That could be apparent to the most discerning audience but today, it's not visible even on big prints or 5K displays.
Either way, 42...Show more →
Yes I agree of course that if the 16k display is large enough, and if you get up close enough to it, you may be able to visually detect the difference in the centre of the image.
But I’m guessing you don’t think that kind of mild future proofing is the main reason to get a high resolution camera!
DavidBM wrote
httivals wrote
I agree with RVH - It's more challenging finding good enough copies of lenses on the A7RIV than on the A7RIII. More difficult than you would imagine given that the resolution difference isn't very significant - about 20% as I recall.Now, if the reason you bought the higher resolution camera is to make 20% larger prints than the already very large ones you make with your f3, or you have purchased a giant display, maybe your standards for acceptable lenses should go up.
But if that's not the reason: if your final image consuming habits haven't changed, if it was good enough on the r3 it's good enough on the R4 - the extra resolution of the R4 has other benefits (less moire and other demosaising artefacts) beyond increased linear resolution, and the lens doesn't have to be any better to get those benefits.
Either way, 42...Show more →
Yes I agree of course that if the 16k display is large enough, and if you get up close enough to it, you may be able to visually detect the difference in the centre of the image.
But I’m guessing you don’t think that kind of mild future proofing is the main reason to get a high resolution camera!
Sep 17, 2020 at 10:06 PM
p.17 #4Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
DavidBM wrote:
I know what you mean, but it's not like the lens is any worse on the r4 than on the r3. It's just that you are tempted to examine it at higher magnification: since "1:1" is not the same multiple of the sensor dimensions in a higher resolution camera.
Now, if the reason you bought the higher resolution camera is to make 20% larger prints than the already very large ones you make with your f3, or you have purchased a giant display, maybe your standards for acceptable lenses should go up.
But if that's not the reason: if your final image consuming habits haven't changed, if it was good enough on the r3 it's good enough on the R4 - the extra resolution of the R4 has other benefits (less moire and other demosaising artefacts) beyond increased linear resolution, and the lens doesn't have to be any better to get those benefits.Totally agree David, especially about your comment on less aliasing on A7R IV images. There is only one point I think we diverge... I think what's acceptable today may not be in the near future. Just speculating, perhaps very soon, it would be very cool to present our images in big 16K displays. Shooting with the R4 instead of R3 would give your detailed landscapes that extra 20% linear resolution -- unfortunatly mostly captured at center. That could be apparent to the most discerning audience but today, it's not visible even on big prints or 5K displays.
Either way, 42 to 61MP is not as significant as 24 to 61. That's an extra 60% linear resolution.Yes I agree of course that if the 16k display is large enough, and if you get up close enough to it, you may be able to visually detect the difference in the centre of the image.
But I’m guessing you don’t think that kind of mild future proofing is the main reason to get a high resolution camera!
What's a high resolution camera? 10 years ago it was 20MP?
10 years from now it could be 200MP! My point is, get the highest resolution cam you can get for your detailed images in order to be as future proof as possible. Right now, the best bang for the buck is the A7R IV in my opinion. (Especially used)
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
httivals wrote
I agree with RVH - It's more challenging finding good enough copies of lenses on the A7RIV than on the A7RIII. More difficult than you would imagine given that the resolution difference isn't very significant - about 20% as I recall.Now, if the reason you bought the higher resolution camera is to make 20% larger prints than the already very large ones you make with your f3, or you have purchased a giant display, maybe your standards for acceptable lenses should go up.
But if that's not the reason: if your final image consuming habits haven't changed, if it was good enough on the r3 it's good enough on the R4 - the extra resolution of the R4 has other benefits (less moire and other demosaising artefacts) beyond increased linear resolution, and the lens doesn't have to be any better to get those benefits.
Either way, 42 to 61MP is not as significant as 24 to 61. That's an extra 60% linear resolution.
But I’m guessing you don’t think that kind of mild future proofing is the main reason to get a high resolution camera!
What's a high resolution camera? 10 years ago it was 20MP?
10 years from now it could be 200MP! My point is, get the highest resolution cam you can get for your detailed images in order to be as future proof as possible. Right now, the best bang for the buck is the A7R IV in my opinion. (Especially used)Sep 17, 2020 at 10:45 PM
p.17 #5Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
I know what you mean, but it's not like the lens is any worse on the r4 than on the r3. It's just that you are tempted to examine it at higher magnification: since "1:1" is not the same multiple of the sensor dimensions in a higher resolution camera.
Now, if the reason you bought the higher resolution camera is to make 20% larger prints than the already very large ones you make with your f3, or you have purchased a giant display, maybe your standards for acceptable lenses should go up.
But if that's not the reason: if your final image consuming habits haven't changed, if it was good enough on the r3 it's good enough on the R4 - the extra resolution of the R4 has other benefits (less moire and other demosaising artefacts) beyond increased linear resolution, and the lens doesn't have to be any better to get those benefits.Totally agree David, especially about your comment on less aliasing on A7R IV images. There is only one point I think we diverge... I think what's acceptable today may not be in the near future. Just speculating, perhaps very soon, it would be very cool to present our images in big 16K displays. Shooting with the R4 instead of R3 would give your detailed landscapes that extra 20% linear resolution -- unfortunatly mostly captured at center. That could be apparent to the most discerning audience but today, it's not visible even on big prints or 5K displays.
Either way, 42 to 61MP is not as significant as 24 to 61. That's an extra 60% linear resolution.Yes I agree of course that if the 16k display is large enough, and if you get up close enough to it, you may be able to visually detect the difference in the centre of the image.
But I’m guessing you don’t think that kind of mild future proofing is the main reason to get a high resolution camera!What's a high resolution camera? 10 years ago it was 20MP? 10 years from now it could be 200MP! My point is, get the highest resolution cam you can get for your detailed images in order to be as future proof as possible. Right now, the best bang for the buck is the A7R IV in my opinion. (Especially used)
I agree that the A7R4 is the best bang for the buck at the moment, and well worth having.
But maybe what I mean by a high resolution camera is one whose resolution is beyond the level where it makes a visible resolution difference to the viewing of whole images.
Is that true of 60MP? In some circumstances, maybe no. But it will be at 200MP, though there will still be colour and aliasing benefits to 200MP if they are Bayer.
But I guess my original thought was more that the main benefits of higher resolution cameras in overall IQ are in areas where you probably aren't missing much or anything if your copy of a lens looks good at 1:1 on 42 MP, but you see some non-symmetry at 1:1 at 61 MP or above. Of course you might want to try and find a copy that is great viewed that way at 61MP in every corner, I've been knows to conduct that search, but it makes sense only if you sort of enjoy that. I think some people get stressed by it, thinking they must succeed in that search even if it's stressful, or else their images will look WORSE than if they had a lower resolution camera, or else that they will look no better in any way, and of course neither is true.
DavidBM wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
httivals wrote
I agree with RVH - It's more challenging finding good enough copies of lenses on the A7RIV than on the A7RIII. More difficult than you would imagine given that the resolution difference isn't very significant - about 20% as I recall.Now, if the reason you bought the higher resolution camera is to make 20% larger prints than the already very large ones you make with your f3, or you have purchased a giant display, maybe your standards for acceptable lenses should go up.
But if that's not the reason: if your final image consuming habits haven't changed, if it was good enough on the r3 it's good enough on the R4 - the extra resolution of the R4 has other benefits (less moire and other demosaising artefacts) beyond increased linear resolution, and the lens doesn't have to be any better to get those benefits.
Either way, 42 to 61MP is not as significant as 24 to 61. That's an extra 60% linear resolution.
But I’m guessing you don’t think that kind of mild future proofing is the main reason to get a high resolution camera!
10 years from now it could be 200MP! My point is, get the highest resolution cam you can get for your detailed images in order to be as future proof as possible. Right now, the best bang for the buck is the A7R IV in my opinion. (Especially used)I agree that the A7R4 is the best bang for the buck at the moment, and well worth having.
But maybe what I mean by a high resolution camera is one whose resolution is beyond the level where it makes a visible resolution difference to the viewing of whole images.
Is that true of 60MP? In some circumstances, maybe no. But it will be at 200MP, though there will still be colour and aliasing benefits to 200MP if they are Bayer.
But I guess my original thought was more that the main benefits of higher resolution cameras in overall IQ are in areas where you probably aren't missing much or anything if your copy of a lens looks good at 1:1 on 42 MP, but you see some non-symmetry at 1:1 at 61 MP or above. Of course you might want to try and find a copy that is great viewed that way at 61MP in every corner, I've been knows to conduct that search, but it makes sense only if you sort of enjoy that. I think some people get stressed by it, thinking they must succeed in that search even if it's stressful, or else their images will look WORSE than if they had a lower resolution camera, or else that they will look no better in any way, and of course neither is true.
Sep 17, 2020 at 11:02 PM
p.17 #6Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
DavidBM wrote:
I know what you mean, but it's not like the lens is any worse on the r4 than on the r3. It's just that you are tempted to examine it at higher magnification: since "1:1" is not the same multiple of the sensor dimensions in a higher resolution camera.
Now, if the reason you bought the higher resolution camera is to make 20% larger prints than the already very large ones you make with your f3, or you have purchased a giant display, maybe your standards for acceptable lenses should go up.
But if that's not the reason: if your final image consuming habits haven't changed, if it was good enough on the r3 it's good enough on the R4 - the extra resolution of the R4 has other benefits (less moire and other demosaising artefacts) beyond increased linear resolution, and the lens doesn't have to be any better to get those benefits.Totally agree David, especially about your comment on less aliasing on A7R IV images. There is only one point I think we diverge... I think what's acceptable today may not be in the near future. Just speculating, perhaps very soon, it would be very cool to present our images in big 16K displays. Shooting with the R4 instead of R3 would give your detailed landscapes that extra 20% linear resolution -- unfortunatly mostly captured at center. That could be apparent to the most discerning audience but today, it's not visible even on big prints or 5K displays.
Either way, 42 to 61MP is not as significant as 24 to 61. That's an extra 60% linear resolution.Yes I agree of course that if the 16k display is large enough, and if you get up close enough to it, you may be able to visually detect the difference in the centre of the image.
But I’m guessing you don’t think that kind of mild future proofing is the main reason to get a high resolution camera!What's a high resolution camera? 10 years ago it was 20MP? 10 years from now it could be 200MP! My point is, get the highest resolution cam you can get for your detailed images in order to be as future proof as possible. Right now, the best bang for the buck is the A7R IV in my opinion. (Especially used)I agree that the A7R4 is the best bang for the buck at the moment, and well worth having.
But maybe what I mean by a high resolution camera is one whose resolution is beyond the level where it makes a visible resolution difference to the viewing of whole images.
Is that true of 60MP? In some circumstances, maybe no. But it will be at 200MP, though there will still be colour and aliasing benefits to 200MP if they are Bayer.
But I guess my original thought was more that the main benefits of higher resolution cameras in overall IQ are in areas...Show more →
This is subjective though. For example, astrophotography may benefit from a symmetric and optimal lens. But, is it crucial for f/8-11 stopped down landscapes? Probably not...but everyone has their level of what's acceptable for them.
I have to confess that after testing 61MP vs 42MP, most of the improvement was at center and that will be true for higher megapixel sensors as well (like 200MP+). So it looks like we really need new sensor tech (like curved sensor) to start seeing off-axis advantages from shooting with even higher megapixel sensors. With the current sensor tech (or shape), it looks like the discrepancy between center and corner resolution will be even higher with higher megapixel sensors.
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
httivals wrote
I agree with RVH - It's more challenging finding good enough copies of lenses on the A7RIV than on the A7RIII. More difficult than you would imagine given that the resolution difference isn't very significant - about 20% as I recall.Now, if the reason you bought the higher resolution camera is to make 20% larger prints than the already very large ones you make with your f3, or you have purchased a giant display, maybe your standards for acceptable lenses should go up.
But if that's not the reason: if your final image consuming habits haven't changed, if it was good enough on the r3 it's good enough on the R4 - the extra resolution of the R4 has other benefits (less moire and other demosaising artefacts) beyond increased linear resolution, and the lens doesn't have to be any better to get those benefits.
Either way, 42 to 61MP is not as significant as 24 to 61. That's an extra 60% linear resolution.
But I’m guessing you don’t think that kind of mild future proofing is the main reason to get a high resolution camera!
10 years from now it could be 200MP! My point is, get the highest resolution cam you can get for your detailed images in order to be as future proof as possible. Right now, the best bang for the buck is the A7R IV in my opinion. (Especially used)But maybe what I mean by a high resolution camera is one whose resolution is beyond the level where it makes a visible resolution difference to the viewing of whole images.
Is that true of 60MP? In some circumstances, maybe no. But it will be at 200MP, though there will still be colour and aliasing benefits to 200MP if they are Bayer.
But I guess my original thought was more that the main benefits of higher resolution cameras in overall IQ are in areas...Show more →
This is subjective though. For example, astrophotography may benefit from a symmetric and optimal lens. But, is it crucial for f/8-11 stopped down landscapes? Probably not...but everyone has their level of what's acceptable for them.
I have to confess that after testing 61MP vs 42MP, most of the improvement was at center and that will be true for higher megapixel sensors as well (like 200MP+). So it looks like we really need new sensor tech (like curved sensor) to start seeing off-axis advantages from shooting with even higher megapixel sensors. With the current sensor tech (or shape), it looks like the discrepancy between center and corner resolution will be even higher with higher megapixel sensors.
Sep 17, 2020 at 11:19 PM
p.17 #7Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
DavidBM wrote:
It’s true that it’s hard to return a lens in Aus unless it’s obviously faulty, but this reluctance by vendors to let you do it is clearly inconsistent with Australian consumer law, which specifies not on,y that the product needs to be fit for purposes. It that it’s the consumer who decides that. The laws also specifies that it’s the consumer who chooses whether the manufacturer or the retailer deals with the return....so don’t be fobbed off by “you’ll have to approach Sony” or whatever by the seller.
I’ve found that the reluctance vanishes when you start to cite the law....Show more →
Wow, those are remarkable statements David. So if an Australian retailer tells you "we'll send it to Sony (or whoever) for evaluation" that is actually not required and you can insist the retailer accept the return regardless of what anyone else thinks of the lens? It sounds like the manufactuer's assessment in fact is irrelevant for any course of action you choose, and in theory at least, you could send your lens directly back to the manufacturer and ask for an exchange without evaluation. And Australia's crappy retailer return policies also are not actually legally binding? All sounds too good to be true...
But in practice I suspect you would very quickly wear out your welcome insisting on these rights here. You might be granted one exchange, two if you are very lucky, but after that would very likely find the lens is "out of stock". So if you need to try a substantial number to get a good sample, you may yet be out of luck.
Edited on Sep 18, 2020 at 12:15 AM · View previous versions
It’s true that it’s hard to return a lens in Aus unless it’s obviously faulty, but this reluctance by vendors to let you do it is clearly inconsistent with Australian consumer law, which specifies not on,y that the product needs to be fit for purposes. It that it’s the consumer who decides that. The laws also specifies that it’s the consumer who chooses whether the manufacturer or the retailer deals with the return....so don’t be fobbed off by “you’ll have to approach Sony” or whatever by the seller.
I’ve found that the reluctance vanishes when you start to cite the law....Show more →
Wow, those are remarkable statements David. So if an Australian retailer tells you "we'll send it to Sony (or whoever) for evaluation" that is actually not required and you can insist the retailer accept the return regardless of what anyone else thinks of the lens? It sounds like the manufactuer's assessment in fact is irrelevant for any course of action you choose, and in theory at least, you could send your lens directly back to the manufacturer and ask for an exchange without evaluation. And Australia's crappy retailer return policies also are not actually legally binding? All sounds too good to be true...
But in practice I suspect you would very quickly wear out your welcome insisting on these rights here. You might be granted one exchange, two if you are very lucky, but after that would very likely find the lens is "out of stock". So if you need to try a substantial number to get a good sample, you may yet be out of luck.
Edited on Sep 18, 2020 at 12:15 AM · View previous versions
Sep 18, 2020 at 12:08 AM
p.17 #8Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
Now, if the reason you bought the higher resolution camera is to make 20% larger prints than the already very large ones you make with your f3, or you have purchased a giant display, maybe your standards for acceptable lenses should go up.
But if that's not the reason: if your final image consuming habits haven't changed, if it was good enough on the r3 it's good enough on the R4 - the extra resolution of the R4 has other benefits (less moire and other demosaising artefacts) beyond increased linear resolution, and the lens doesn't have to be any better to get those benefits.Totally agree David, especially about your comment on less aliasing on A7R IV images. There is only one point I think we diverge... I think what's acceptable today may not be in the near future. Just speculating, perhaps very soon, it would be very cool to present our images in big 16K displays. Shooting with the R4 instead of R3 would give your detailed landscapes that extra 20% linear resolution -- unfortunatly mostly captured at center. That could be apparent to the most discerning audience but today, it's not visible even on big prints or 5K displays.
Either way, 42 to 61MP is not as significant as 24 to 61. That's an extra 60% linear resolution.Yes I agree of course that if the 16k display is large enough, and if you get up close enough to it, you may be able to visually detect the difference in the centre of the image.
But I’m guessing you don’t think that kind of mild future proofing is the main reason to get a high resolution camera!What's a high resolution camera? 10 years ago it was 20MP? 10 years from now it could be 200MP! My point is, get the highest resolution cam you can get for your detailed images in order to be as future proof as possible. Right now, the best bang for the buck is the A7R IV in my opinion. (Especially used)I agree that the A7R4 is the best bang for the buck at the moment, and well worth having.
But maybe what I mean by a high resolution camera is one whose resolution is beyond the level where it makes a visible resolution difference to the viewing of whole images.
Is that true of 60MP? In some circumstances, maybe no. But it will be at 200MP, though there will still be colour and aliasing benefits to 200MP if they are Bayer.
But I guess my original thought was more that the main benefits of higher resolution cameras in overall IQ are in areas where you probably aren't missing much or anything if your copy of a lens looks good at 1:1 on 42 MP, but you see some non-symmetry at 1:1 at 61 MP or above. Of course you might want to try and find a copy that is great viewed that way at 61MP in every corner, I've been knows to conduct that search, but it makes sense only if you sort of enjoy that. I think some people get stressed by it, thinking they must succeed in that search even if it's stressful, or else their images will look WORSE than if they had a lower resolution camera, or else that they will look no better in any way, and of course neither is true.This is subjective though. For example, astrophotography may benefit from a symmetric and optimal lens. But, is it crucial for f/8-11 stopped down landscapes? Probably not...but everyone has their level of what's acceptable for them.
I have to confess that after testing 61MP vs 42MP, most of the improvement was at center and that will be true for higher megapixel sensors as well (like 200MP+). So it looks like we really need new sensor tech (like curved sensor) to start seeing off-axis advantages from shooting with even higher megapixel sensors. With the current sensor tech (or shape), it looks like...Show more →
61MP will also become diffraction limited before 42MP. There is a sweet spot where a very good lens will resolve better detail on the 61MP sensor, but it is a small window that decreases as the lens is stopped down.
DavidBM wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
I know what you mean, but it's not like the lens is any worse on the r4 than on the r3. It's just that you are tempted to examine it at higher magnification: since "1:1" is not the same multiple of the sensor dimensions in a higher resolution camera.Now, if the reason you bought the higher resolution camera is to make 20% larger prints than the already very large ones you make with your f3, or you have purchased a giant display, maybe your standards for acceptable lenses should go up.
But if that's not the reason: if your final image consuming habits haven't changed, if it was good enough on the r3 it's good enough on the R4 - the extra resolution of the R4 has other benefits (less moire and other demosaising artefacts) beyond increased linear resolution, and the lens doesn't have to be any better to get those benefits.
Either way, 42 to 61MP is not as significant as 24 to 61. That's an extra 60% linear resolution.
But I’m guessing you don’t think that kind of mild future proofing is the main reason to get a high resolution camera!
10 years from now it could be 200MP! My point is, get the highest resolution cam you can get for your detailed images in order to be as future proof as possible. Right now, the best bang for the buck is the A7R IV in my opinion. (Especially used)But maybe what I mean by a high resolution camera is one whose resolution is beyond the level where it makes a visible resolution difference to the viewing of whole images.
Is that true of 60MP? In some circumstances, maybe no. But it will be at 200MP, though there will still be colour and aliasing benefits to 200MP if they are Bayer.
But I guess my original thought was more that the main benefits of higher resolution cameras in overall IQ are in areas where you probably aren't missing much or anything if your copy of a lens looks good at 1:1 on 42 MP, but you see some non-symmetry at 1:1 at 61 MP or above. Of course you might want to try and find a copy that is great viewed that way at 61MP in every corner, I've been knows to conduct that search, but it makes sense only if you sort of enjoy that. I think some people get stressed by it, thinking they must succeed in that search even if it's stressful, or else their images will look WORSE than if they had a lower resolution camera, or else that they will look no better in any way, and of course neither is true.
I have to confess that after testing 61MP vs 42MP, most of the improvement was at center and that will be true for higher megapixel sensors as well (like 200MP+). So it looks like we really need new sensor tech (like curved sensor) to start seeing off-axis advantages from shooting with even higher megapixel sensors. With the current sensor tech (or shape), it looks like...Show more →
61MP will also become diffraction limited before 42MP. There is a sweet spot where a very good lens will resolve better detail on the 61MP sensor, but it is a small window that decreases as the lens is stopped down.
Sep 18, 2020 at 12:14 AM
p.17 #9Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
pdmphoto wrote:
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
Totally agree David, especially about your comment on less aliasing on A7R IV images. There is only one point I think we diverge... I think what's acceptable today may not be in the near future. Just speculating, perhaps very soon, it would be very cool to present our images in big 16K displays. Shooting with the R4 instead of R3 would give your detailed landscapes that extra 20% linear resolution -- unfortunatly mostly captured at center. That could be apparent to the most discerning audience but today, it's not visible even on big prints or 5K displays.Either way, 42 to 61MP is not as significant as 24 to 61. That's an extra 60% linear resolution.
But I’m guessing you don’t think that kind of mild future proofing is the main reason to get a high resolution camera!
10 years from now it could be 200MP! My point is, get the highest resolution cam you can get for your detailed images in order to be as future proof as possible. Right now, the best bang for the buck is the A7R IV in my opinion. (Especially used)But maybe what I mean by a high resolution camera is one whose resolution is beyond the level where it makes a visible resolution difference to the viewing of whole images.
Is that true of 60MP? In some circumstances, maybe no. But it will be at 200MP, though there will still be colour and aliasing benefits to 200MP if they are Bayer.
But I guess my original thought was more that the main benefits of higher resolution cameras in overall IQ are in areas where you probably aren't missing much or anything if your copy of a lens looks good at 1:1 on 42 MP, but you see some non-symmetry at 1:1 at 61 MP or above. Of course you might want to try and find a copy that is great viewed that way at 61MP in every corner, I've been knows to conduct that search, but it makes sense only if you sort of enjoy that. I think some people get stressed by it, thinking they must succeed in that search even if it's stressful, or else their images will look WORSE than if they had a lower resolution camera, or else that they will look no better in any way, and of course neither is true.
I have to confess that after testing 61MP vs 42MP, most of the improvement was at center and that will be true for higher megapixel sensors as well (like 200MP+). So it looks like we really need new sensor tech (like curved sensor) to start seeing off-axis advantages from shooting with even higher megapixel sensors. With the current sensor tech (or shape), it looks like the discrepancy between center and corner resolution will be even higher with higher megapixel sensors.
This is a common misconception. The effects of diffraction will be easier/quicker to see (due to the higher resolution), but diffraction limited...no. The amount of diffraction produced is the same. Now whether you see it or not is the question. F/stop for f/stop a higher resolution sensor will ALWAYS give you more detail than a lower resolution sensor of the same size.
In other words, a picture taken from an a7R IV at f/11 (insert lens) will always capture more detail than a picture from an a7R III at f/11 (insert same lens). It isn’t “diffraction limited”.
Check out the video.
https://youtu.be/N0FXoWdHXTk
Sep 18, 2020 at 01:24 AM
p.17 #10Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
rvh23 wrote:
I’ve found that the reluctance vanishes when you start to cite the law. But I agree it’s an off putting pain to have to do that.Wow, those are remarkable statements David. So if an Australian retailer tells you "we'll send it to Sony (or whoever) for evaluation" that is actually not required and you can insist the retailer accept the return regardless of what anyone else thinks of the lens? It sounds like the manufactuer's assessment in fact is irrelevant for any course of action you choose, and in theory at least, you could send your lens directly back to the manufacturer and ask for an exchange without evaluation. And Australia's crappy retailer return policies also are not actually legally binding? All sounds too good...Show more →
Yeah you might wear out your welcome if you did it too often. Bits that’s true even of Amazon, I hear. What I do with big purchases these days is to use a retailer that I deal with often, and do some simple centring tests in store on a couple of copies.
DavidBM wrote
It’s true that it’s hard to return a lens in Aus unless it’s obviously faulty, but this reluctance by vendors to let you do it is clearly inconsistent with Australian consumer law, which specifies not on,y that the product needs to be fit for purposes. It that it’s the consumer who decides that. The laws also specifies that it’s the consumer who chooses whether the manufacturer or the retailer deals with the return....so don’t be fobbed off by “you’ll have to approach Sony” or whatever by the seller.I’ve found that the reluctance vanishes when you start to cite the law. But I agree it’s an off putting pain to have to do that.
Yeah you might wear out your welcome if you did it too often. Bits that’s true even of Amazon, I hear. What I do with big purchases these days is to use a retailer that I deal with often, and do some simple centring tests in store on a couple of copies.
Sep 18, 2020 at 03:00 AM
|
p.17 #11Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
greensony wrote:
But I’m guessing you don’t think that kind of mild future proofing is the main reason to get a high resolution camera!What's a high resolution camera? 10 years ago it was 20MP? 10 years from now it could be 200MP! My point is, get the highest resolution cam you can get for your detailed images in order to be as future proof as possible. Right now, the best bang for the buck is the A7R IV in my opinion. (Especially used)I agree that the A7R4 is the best bang for the buck at the moment, and well worth having.
But maybe what I mean by a high resolution camera is one whose resolution is beyond the level where it makes a visible resolution difference to the viewing of whole images.
Is that true of 60MP? In some circumstances, maybe no. But it will be at 200MP, though there will still be colour and aliasing benefits to 200MP if they are Bayer.
But I guess my original thought was more that the main benefits of higher resolution cameras in overall IQ are in areas where you probably aren't missing much or anything if your copy of a lens looks good at 1:1 on 42 MP, but you see some non-symmetry at 1:1 at 61 MP or above. Of course you might want to try and find a copy that is great viewed that way at 61MP in every corner, I've been knows to conduct that search, but it makes sense only if you sort of enjoy that. I think some people get stressed by it, thinking they must succeed in that search even if it's stressful, or else their images will look WORSE than if they had a lower resolution camera, or else that they will look no better in any way, and of course neither is true.This is subjective though. For example, astrophotography may benefit from a symmetric and optimal lens. But, is it crucial for f/8-11 stopped down landscapes? Probably not...but everyone has their level of what's acceptable for them.
I have to confess that after testing 61MP vs 42MP, most of the improvement was at center and that will be true for higher megapixel sensors as well (like 200MP+). So it looks like we really need new sensor tech (like curved sensor) to start seeing off-axis advantages from shooting with even higher megapixel sensors. With the current sensor tech (or shape), it looks like the discrepancy between center and corner resolution will be even higher with higher megapixel sensors.61MP will also become diffraction limited before 42MP. There is a sweet spot where a very good lens will resolve better detail on the 61MP sensor, but it is a small window that decreases as the lens is stopped down.This is a common misconception. The effects of diffraction will be easier/quicker to see (due to the higher resolution), but diffraction limited...no. The amount of diffraction produced is the same. Now whether you see it or not is the question. F/stop for f/stop a higher resolution sensor will ALWAYS give you more detail than a lower resolution sensor of the same size.
In other words, a picture taken from an a7R IV at f/11 (insert lens) will always capture more detail than a picture from an a7R III at f/11 (insert same lens). It isn’t “diffraction limited”.
Check out the video....Show more →
I'm afraid that video you link to is an over-simplification of what can be a complex subject, and quoting it verbatim suggests that you don't fully understand sampling theory.
More sampling isn't always better or necessary. Taking the audio analogue, the Nyquist theory states that you only need two digital samples per analogue sine wave to reproduce the original exactly. That's why CD's are 44kHz sampling frequency, as that will faithfully reproduce frequencies up to 22kHz, which are already beyond the best persons hearing. All this nonsense about higher sampling rates more faithfully reproducing the original, is just marketing BS. The only exception to this is in the original master recording, where say 96kHz 24bit is worthwhile - to accommodate the losses in subsequent mixing of the track.
Fourier transform analysis tells us that images are really just a collection of different sampled frequencies. As with the audio analogue above, the sensor needs only to sample the highest spatial frequency that the lens can supply it with, up to the Nyquist frequency. Any further sampling will not provide anymore real information.
The bayer demosaicing complicates the normal Nyquist relationship sampling rate somewhat, and needs to be taken into consideration as well.
Diffraction is a physical property of light when it comes up against an edge. A perfect lens which has no optical aberrations will have a diffraction limited resolution at all apertures. However real lenses have optical aberrations, some of which are reduced by stopping the lens down: at the wider apertures, the diffraction resolution limits are so high relative to today's sensor resolution, that most of what you see degrading your image is these optical aberrations; as you stop down, some of these optical aberrations get reduced so the lenses image quality improves - the diffraction limited resolution is also dropping in the 'background' as well, but it still far exceeds the optical aberration limited resolution. Eventually, you reach an aperture where the diffraction limited resolution drops below the optical aberration resolution of the lens: from this point on the lens is considered 'diffraction limited'. This generally happens between f5.6-f11, depending on the quality of the lens.
pdmphoto wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
Yes I agree of course that if the 16k display is large enough, and if you get up close enough to it, you may be able to visually detect the difference in the centre of the image.But I’m guessing you don’t think that kind of mild future proofing is the main reason to get a high resolution camera!
10 years from now it could be 200MP! My point is, get the highest resolution cam you can get for your detailed images in order to be as future proof as possible. Right now, the best bang for the buck is the A7R IV in my opinion. (Especially used)But maybe what I mean by a high resolution camera is one whose resolution is beyond the level where it makes a visible resolution difference to the viewing of whole images.
Is that true of 60MP? In some circumstances, maybe no. But it will be at 200MP, though there will still be colour and aliasing benefits to 200MP if they are Bayer.
But I guess my original thought was more that the main benefits of higher resolution cameras in overall IQ are in areas where you probably aren't missing much or anything if your copy of a lens looks good at 1:1 on 42 MP, but you see some non-symmetry at 1:1 at 61 MP or above. Of course you might want to try and find a copy that is great viewed that way at 61MP in every corner, I've been knows to conduct that search, but it makes sense only if you sort of enjoy that. I think some people get stressed by it, thinking they must succeed in that search even if it's stressful, or else their images will look WORSE than if they had a lower resolution camera, or else that they will look no better in any way, and of course neither is true.
I have to confess that after testing 61MP vs 42MP, most of the improvement was at center and that will be true for higher megapixel sensors as well (like 200MP+). So it looks like we really need new sensor tech (like curved sensor) to start seeing off-axis advantages from shooting with even higher megapixel sensors. With the current sensor tech (or shape), it looks like the discrepancy between center and corner resolution will be even higher with higher megapixel sensors.
In other words, a picture taken from an a7R IV at f/11 (insert lens) will always capture more detail than a picture from an a7R III at f/11 (insert same lens). It isn’t “diffraction limited”.
Check out the video....Show more →
I'm afraid that video you link to is an over-simplification of what can be a complex subject, and quoting it verbatim suggests that you don't fully understand sampling theory.
More sampling isn't always better or necessary. Taking the audio analogue, the Nyquist theory states that you only need two digital samples per analogue sine wave to reproduce the original exactly. That's why CD's are 44kHz sampling frequency, as that will faithfully reproduce frequencies up to 22kHz, which are already beyond the best persons hearing. All this nonsense about higher sampling rates more faithfully reproducing the original, is just marketing BS. The only exception to this is in the original master recording, where say 96kHz 24bit is worthwhile - to accommodate the losses in subsequent mixing of the track.
Fourier transform analysis tells us that images are really just a collection of different sampled frequencies. As with the audio analogue above, the sensor needs only to sample the highest spatial frequency that the lens can supply it with, up to the Nyquist frequency. Any further sampling will not provide anymore real information.
The bayer demosaicing complicates the normal Nyquist relationship sampling rate somewhat, and needs to be taken into consideration as well.
Diffraction is a physical property of light when it comes up against an edge. A perfect lens which has no optical aberrations will have a diffraction limited resolution at all apertures. However real lenses have optical aberrations, some of which are reduced by stopping the lens down: at the wider apertures, the diffraction resolution limits are so high relative to today's sensor resolution, that most of what you see degrading your image is these optical aberrations; as you stop down, some of these optical aberrations get reduced so the lenses image quality improves - the diffraction limited resolution is also dropping in the 'background' as well, but it still far exceeds the optical aberration limited resolution. Eventually, you reach an aperture where the diffraction limited resolution drops below the optical aberration resolution of the lens: from this point on the lens is considered 'diffraction limited'. This generally happens between f5.6-f11, depending on the quality of the lens.
Sep 18, 2020 at 05:40 AM
p.17 #12Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
Petegh wrote:
greensony wrote
pdmphoto wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
What's a high resolution camera? 10 years ago it was 20MP? 10 years from now it could be 200MP! My point is, get the highest resolution cam you can get for your detailed images in order to be as future proof as possible. Right now, the best bang for the buck is the A7R IV in my opinion. (Especially used)But maybe what I mean by a high resolution camera is one whose resolution is beyond the level where it makes a visible resolution difference to the viewing of whole images.
Is that true of 60MP? In some circumstances, maybe no. But it will be at 200MP, though there will still be colour and aliasing benefits to 200MP if they are Bayer.
But I guess my original thought was more that the main benefits of higher resolution cameras in overall IQ are in areas where you probably aren't missing much or anything if your copy of a lens looks good at 1:1 on 42 MP, but you see some non-symmetry at 1:1 at 61 MP or above. Of course you might want to try and find a copy that is great viewed that way at 61MP in every corner, I've been knows to conduct that search, but it makes sense only if you sort of enjoy that. I think some people get stressed by it, thinking they must succeed in that search even if it's stressful, or else their images will look WORSE than if they had a lower resolution camera, or else that they will look no better in any way, and of course neither is true.
I have to confess that after testing 61MP vs 42MP, most of the improvement was at center and that will be true for higher megapixel sensors as well (like 200MP+). So it looks like we really need new sensor tech (like curved sensor) to start seeing off-axis advantages from shooting with even higher megapixel sensors. With the current sensor tech (or shape), it looks like the discrepancy between center and corner resolution will be even higher with higher megapixel sensors.
In other words, a picture taken from an a7R IV at f/11 (insert lens) will always capture more detail than a picture from an a7R III at f/11 (insert same lens). It isn’t “diffraction limited”.
Check out the video.
https://youtu.be/N0FXoWdHXTk
More sampling isn't always better or necessary. Taking the audio analogue, the Nyquist theory states that you only need two digital samples per analogue sine wave to reproduce the original exactly. That's why CD's are 44kHz sampling frequency, as that will faithfully reproduce frequencies up to 22kHz, which are already beyond the best persons hearing. All this nonsense about higher sampling rates more faithfully reproducing the original, is just marketing BS....Show more →
I’m afraid the theory you mention isn’t scientific fact of what can be a complex subject. I also didn’t quote anything verbatim, which suggests your attention to detail isn’t as good as you think it is.
You’re long winded last paragraph essentially reinforces my post and the video I linked, congratulations.
Good day, Mr. professor.
Sep 18, 2020 at 08:53 AM
p.17 #13Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
greensony wrote:
But maybe what I mean by a high resolution camera is one whose resolution is beyond the level where it makes a visible resolution difference to the viewing of whole images.
Is that true of 60MP? In some circumstances, maybe no. But it will be at 200MP, though there will still be colour and aliasing benefits to 200MP if they are Bayer.
But I guess my original thought was more that the main benefits of higher resolution cameras in overall IQ are in areas where you probably aren't missing much or anything if your copy of a lens looks good at 1:1 on 42 MP, but you see some non-symmetry at 1:1 at 61 MP or above. Of course you might want to try and find a copy that is great viewed that way at 61MP in every corner, I've been knows to conduct that search, but it makes sense only if you sort of enjoy that. I think some people get stressed by it, thinking they must succeed in that search even if it's stressful, or else their images will look WORSE than if they had a lower resolution camera, or else that they will look no better in any way, and of course neither is true.This is subjective though. For example, astrophotography may benefit from a symmetric and optimal lens. But, is it crucial for f/8-11 stopped down landscapes? Probably not...but everyone has their level of what's acceptable for them.
I have to confess that after testing 61MP vs 42MP, most of the improvement was at center and that will be true for higher megapixel sensors as well (like 200MP+). So it looks like we really need new sensor tech (like curved sensor) to start seeing off-axis advantages from shooting with even higher megapixel sensors. With the current sensor tech (or shape), it looks like the discrepancy between center and corner resolution will be even higher with higher megapixel sensors.61MP will also become diffraction limited before 42MP. There is a sweet spot where a very good lens will resolve better detail on the 61MP sensor, but it is a small window that decreases as the lens is stopped down.This is a common misconception. The effects of diffraction will be easier/quicker to see (due to the higher resolution), but diffraction limited...no. The amount of diffraction produced is the same. Now whether you see it or not is the question. F/stop for f/stop a higher resolution sensor will ALWAYS give you more detail than a lower resolution sensor of the same size.
In other words, a picture taken from an a7R IV at f/11 (insert lens) will always capture more detail than a picture from an a7R III at f/11 (insert same lens). It isn’t “diffraction limited”.
Check out the video.
https://youtu.be/N0FXoWdHXTkI'm afraid that video you link to is an over-simplification of what can be a complex subject, and quoting it verbatim suggests that you don't fully understand sampling theory.
More sampling isn't always better or necessary. Taking the audio analogue, the Nyquist theory states that you only need two digital samples per analogue sine wave to reproduce the original exactly. That's why CD's are 44kHz sampling frequency, as that will faithfully reproduce frequencies up to 22kHz, which are already beyond the best persons hearing. All this nonsense about higher sampling rates more faithfully reproducing the original, is just marketing BS. The only exception to this is in the original master recording, where say 96kHz 24bit is worthwhile - to accommodate the losses in subsequent mixing of the track.
Fourier transform analysis tells us that images are really just a collection of different sampled frequencies. As with the audio analogue above, the sensor needs only to sample the highest spatial frequency that the lens can supply it with, up to the Nyquist frequency. Any further sampling will not provide anymore real information.
The bayer demosaicing complicates the normal Nyquist relationship sampling rate somewhat, and needs to be taken into consideration as well.
Diffraction is a physical property of light when it comes up against an edge. A perfect lens which has no optical aberrations will have a diffraction limited resolution at all apertures. However real lenses have optical aberrations, some of which are reduced by stopping the lens down: at the wider apertures, the diffraction resolution limits are so high relative to today's sensor resolution, that most of what you see degrading your image is these optical aberrations; as you stop down, some of these optical aberrations get reduced so the lenses image quality improves - the diffraction limited resolution is also dropping in the 'background' as well, but it still far exceeds the optical aberration limited resolution. Eventually, you reach an aperture where the diffraction limited resolution drops below the optical aberration resolution of the lens: from this point on the lens is considered 'diffraction limited'. This generally happens between f5.6-f11, depending on the quality of the lens.I’m afraid the theory you mention isn’t scientific fact of what can be a complex subject. I also didn’t quote anything verbatim, which suggests your attention to detail isn’t as good as you think it is.
You’re long winded last paragraph essentially reinforces my post and the video I linked, congratulations.
Good day, Mr. professor.
At 8:18 in the video he says and displays a text graphic "F/stop for F/stop a higher resolution sensor will ALWAYS give you more detail than a lower resolution sensor" - looks pretty verbatim to me.
You then go on to say in your own words "a picture taken from an A7rIV at f11 will always capture more detail than a picture from an A7rIII at f11. It isn't diffraction limited." This statement is false, as even the lower res A7RIII's sensor will be diffraction limited by the lens at f11.
Everything I said was based on the science as I understand it: if you know better, its customary to explain and provide evidence to the contrary, rather than just dismissing it, or turning personal.
If you genuinely wish to understand the topic better, the best lay-persons article I know of is the one from the Luminous Landscape's website here: https://luminous-landscape.com/do-sensors-out-resolve-lenses/
Petegh wrote
greensony wrote
pdmphoto wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
DavidBM wrote
I agree that the A7R4 is the best bang for the buck at the moment, and well worth having.But maybe what I mean by a high resolution camera is one whose resolution is beyond the level where it makes a visible resolution difference to the viewing of whole images.
Is that true of 60MP? In some circumstances, maybe no. But it will be at 200MP, though there will still be colour and aliasing benefits to 200MP if they are Bayer.
But I guess my original thought was more that the main benefits of higher resolution cameras in overall IQ are in areas where you probably aren't missing much or anything if your copy of a lens looks good at 1:1 on 42 MP, but you see some non-symmetry at 1:1 at 61 MP or above. Of course you might want to try and find a copy that is great viewed that way at 61MP in every corner, I've been knows to conduct that search, but it makes sense only if you sort of enjoy that. I think some people get stressed by it, thinking they must succeed in that search even if it's stressful, or else their images will look WORSE than if they had a lower resolution camera, or else that they will look no better in any way, and of course neither is true.
I have to confess that after testing 61MP vs 42MP, most of the improvement was at center and that will be true for higher megapixel sensors as well (like 200MP+). So it looks like we really need new sensor tech (like curved sensor) to start seeing off-axis advantages from shooting with even higher megapixel sensors. With the current sensor tech (or shape), it looks like the discrepancy between center and corner resolution will be even higher with higher megapixel sensors.
In other words, a picture taken from an a7R IV at f/11 (insert lens) will always capture more detail than a picture from an a7R III at f/11 (insert same lens). It isn’t “diffraction limited”.
Check out the video.
https://youtu.be/N0FXoWdHXTk
More sampling isn't always better or necessary. Taking the audio analogue, the Nyquist theory states that you only need two digital samples per analogue sine wave to reproduce the original exactly. That's why CD's are 44kHz sampling frequency, as that will faithfully reproduce frequencies up to 22kHz, which are already beyond the best persons hearing. All this nonsense about higher sampling rates more faithfully reproducing the original, is just marketing BS. The only exception to this is in the original master recording, where say 96kHz 24bit is worthwhile - to accommodate the losses in subsequent mixing of the track.
Fourier transform analysis tells us that images are really just a collection of different sampled frequencies. As with the audio analogue above, the sensor needs only to sample the highest spatial frequency that the lens can supply it with, up to the Nyquist frequency. Any further sampling will not provide anymore real information.
The bayer demosaicing complicates the normal Nyquist relationship sampling rate somewhat, and needs to be taken into consideration as well.
Diffraction is a physical property of light when it comes up against an edge. A perfect lens which has no optical aberrations will have a diffraction limited resolution at all apertures. However real lenses have optical aberrations, some of which are reduced by stopping the lens down: at the wider apertures, the diffraction resolution limits are so high relative to today's sensor resolution, that most of what you see degrading your image is these optical aberrations; as you stop down, some of these optical aberrations get reduced so the lenses image quality improves - the diffraction limited resolution is also dropping in the 'background' as well, but it still far exceeds the optical aberration limited resolution. Eventually, you reach an aperture where the diffraction limited resolution drops below the optical aberration resolution of the lens: from this point on the lens is considered 'diffraction limited'. This generally happens between f5.6-f11, depending on the quality of the lens.
You’re long winded last paragraph essentially reinforces my post and the video I linked, congratulations.
Good day, Mr. professor.
At 8:18 in the video he says and displays a text graphic "F/stop for F/stop a higher resolution sensor will ALWAYS give you more detail than a lower resolution sensor" - looks pretty verbatim to me.
You then go on to say in your own words "a picture taken from an A7rIV at f11 will always capture more detail than a picture from an A7rIII at f11. It isn't diffraction limited." This statement is false, as even the lower res A7RIII's sensor will be diffraction limited by the lens at f11.
Everything I said was based on the science as I understand it: if you know better, its customary to explain and provide evidence to the contrary, rather than just dismissing it, or turning personal.
If you genuinely wish to understand the topic better, the best lay-persons article I know of is the one from the Luminous Landscape's website here: https://luminous-landscape.com/do-sensors-out-resolve-lenses/
Sep 19, 2020 at 02:11 AM
p.17 #14Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
The way the Sony 12-24/2.8 GM rear filter slot works, glass filters won't fit since the filter must blend in order to go in. (only flexible gel/film filters work)
Very elegant solution from Haida!
Hi, are the Haida filters good quality ?
You seem to say that their thickness is too great? is it unusable?
What is the opinion of those who use them?
Thank you ;-)
abase21 wrote
filter option from HAIDA:Very elegant solution from Haida!
Hi, are the Haida filters good quality ?
You seem to say that their thickness is too great? is it unusable?
What is the opinion of those who use them?
Thank you ;-)
Sep 19, 2020 at 04:24 AM
p.17 #15Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
MJBlackfoot wrote:
The way the Sony 12-24/2.8 GM rear filter slot works, glass filters won't fit since the filter must blend in order to go in. (only flexible gel/film filters work)
Very elegant solution from Haida!Hi, are the Haida filters good quality ?
You seem to say that their thickness is too great? is it unusable?
What is the opinion of those who use them?
Thank you ;-)
They have a good coating and the ND 3.0 has an exceptionally low color cast. But their thickness of 0.5mm induces additional FC and lowers slightly the corner sharpness even stopped as Fred has written. Stopped down the resulting IQ is still good enough for me (and I'm finicky regarding IQ). The handling is much better than any thinner alternative. Maybe the Aurora solution will solve this in the future. We'll see. I've tested them on the Sigma 14-24. You can find the test report here:
https://wild-places.com/2020/01/06/rear-filters-for-sigma-2-8-14-24mm-dg-dn/
Fred Miranda wrote
abase21 wrote
filter option from HAIDA:Very elegant solution from Haida!
You seem to say that their thickness is too great? is it unusable?
What is the opinion of those who use them?
Thank you ;-)
They have a good coating and the ND 3.0 has an exceptionally low color cast. But their thickness of 0.5mm induces additional FC and lowers slightly the corner sharpness even stopped as Fred has written. Stopped down the resulting IQ is still good enough for me (and I'm finicky regarding IQ). The handling is much better than any thinner alternative. Maybe the Aurora solution will solve this in the future. We'll see. I've tested them on the Sigma 14-24. You can find the test report here:
https://wild-places.com/2020/01/06/rear-filters-for-sigma-2-8-14-24mm-dg-dn/
Sep 19, 2020 at 04:31 AM
p.17 #16Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
Thank you for reply ;-)
I'll read your test
thank you so much ;-)
I'll read your test
thank you so much ;-)
Sep 19, 2020 at 04:43 AM
p.17 #17Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
I received my fourth copy today, and it is the best one I've seen, with minimal decentering but some minor swing over the whole range that is masked by F4-5.6. After applying some temporary shims on the camera's mount it now looks fairly symmetric on my A7r4 even at 2.8, especially between 14 and 24mm. I may be able to improve 12mm symmetry with a bit more work, but even without that, when stopped down to 7.1 where I shoot focus-stacked landscapes it looks great. So I think I will call it quits with this copy.
In agreement with other reports, I clearly see best performance in the middle of the zoom range around 18mm, where it's phenomenally sharp all the way into the corners even wide open. Corner symmetry is also optimal at that focal length (nearly perfect), and worst at 12mm as also seen by several other FM members.
At 14mm I saw less corner asymmetry on average for the 4 Sigma 14-24 DG DN samples I tried last year than for these 4 GMs. But at 18mm it's been the other way around. At 24mm I didn't see a clear difference with these small numbers of lenses.
Although the Sony can be sharper than the Sigma at wide apertures if you have perfect copies of both, in practice it looks very much like the manufacturing tolerances are just not tight enough for that to translate to consistent real world outcomes. So if you plan to spend a lot more money to get the Sony rather than the Sigma, and expect that to translate to better IQ, you may be disappointed especially at 14-16mm where the Sigma is optimised.
Edited on Sep 22, 2020 at 03:35 AM · View previous versions
In agreement with other reports, I clearly see best performance in the middle of the zoom range around 18mm, where it's phenomenally sharp all the way into the corners even wide open. Corner symmetry is also optimal at that focal length (nearly perfect), and worst at 12mm as also seen by several other FM members.
At 14mm I saw less corner asymmetry on average for the 4 Sigma 14-24 DG DN samples I tried last year than for these 4 GMs. But at 18mm it's been the other way around. At 24mm I didn't see a clear difference with these small numbers of lenses.
Although the Sony can be sharper than the Sigma at wide apertures if you have perfect copies of both, in practice it looks very much like the manufacturing tolerances are just not tight enough for that to translate to consistent real world outcomes. So if you plan to spend a lot more money to get the Sony rather than the Sigma, and expect that to translate to better IQ, you may be disappointed especially at 14-16mm where the Sigma is optimised.
Edited on Sep 22, 2020 at 03:35 AM · View previous versions
Sep 21, 2020 at 10:55 PM
p.17 #18Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
rvh23 wrote:
I received my fourth copy today, and it is the best one I've seen, with minimal decentering but some minor swing over the whole range that is masked by F4-5.6. After applying some temporary shims on the camera's mount it now looks fairly symmetric on my A7r4 even at 2.8, especially between 14 and 24mm. I may be able to improve 12mm symmetry with a bit more work, but even without that, when stopped down to 7.1 where I shoot focus-stacked landscapes it looks great. So I think I will call it quits with this copy.
In agreement with other...Show more →
Congratulations, about time, I just ordered mine from digidirect🤞
Sep 22, 2020 at 03:22 AM
p.17 #19Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
PerkyBeans wrote:
In agreement with other reports, I clearly see best performance in the middle of the zoom range around 18mm, where it's phenomenally sharp all the way into the corners even wide open. Corner symmetry is also optimal at that focal length (nearly perfect), and worst at 12mm as also seen by several other FM members.
At 14mm I saw less corner asymmetry on average for the 4 Sigma 14-24 DG DN samples I tried last year than for these 4 GMs. But at 18mm it's been the other way around. At 24mm I didn't see a clear difference with these small numbers of lenses.Congratulations, about time, I just ordered mine from digidirect🤞
Thanks. Best of luck with yours.
rvh23 wrote
I received my fourth copy today, and it is the best one I've seen, with minimal decentering but some minor swing over the whole range that is masked by F4-5.6. After applying some temporary shims on the camera's mount it now looks fairly symmetric on my A7r4 even at 2.8, especially between 14 and 24mm. I may be able to improve 12mm symmetry with a bit more work, but even without that, when stopped down to 7.1 where I shoot focus-stacked landscapes it looks great. So I think I will call it quits with this copy.In agreement with other reports, I clearly see best performance in the middle of the zoom range around 18mm, where it's phenomenally sharp all the way into the corners even wide open. Corner symmetry is also optimal at that focal length (nearly perfect), and worst at 12mm as also seen by several other FM members.
At 14mm I saw less corner asymmetry on average for the 4 Sigma 14-24 DG DN samples I tried last year than for these 4 GMs. But at 18mm it's been the other way around. At 24mm I didn't see a clear difference with these small numbers of lenses.
Thanks. Best of luck with yours.
Sep 22, 2020 at 03:37 AM
p.17 #20Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review
rvh23 wrote:
PerkyBeans wrote
rvh23 wrote
I received my fourth copy today, and it is the best one I've seen, with minimal decentering but some minor swing over the whole range that is masked by F4-5.6. After applying some temporary shims on the camera's mount it now looks fairly symmetric on my A7r4 even at 2.8, especially between 14 and 24mm. I may be able to improve 12mm symmetry with a bit more work, but even without that, when stopped down to 7.1 where I shoot focus-stacked landscapes it looks great. So I think I will call it quits with this copy.In agreement with other reports, I clearly see best performance in the middle of the zoom range around 18mm, where it's phenomenally sharp all the way into the corners even wide open. Corner symmetry is also optimal at that focal length (nearly perfect), and worst at 12mm as also seen by several other FM members.
At 14mm I saw less corner asymmetry on average for the 4 Sigma 14-24 DG DN samples I tried last year than for these 4 GMs. But at 18mm it's been the other way around. At 24mm I didn't see a clear difference with these small numbers of lenses.
Thanks a lot, I’ll need it I think, I’ll let you know how it goes!
Sep 22, 2020 at 04:04 AM